It takes a nation to protect the nation
This is a translation of an article written by Helge Lurås, leader of The Centre for International and Strategic Analysis, called ”Innvandringsevangeliet går mot slutten” -The Immigration Gospel Is Ending. 29.03.2016.
How many non-ethnic-norwegians can we manage to absorb before we are in the same predicament as Sweden and Belgium?
“We have to live with terror” said Magnus Randstorp from the Swedish Defense Academy to the newspaper Dagens Næringsliv after the events in Brussels this week. What is important is how we, as victims, “respond to to terror”. “We must stand together” and in no way “couple the stream of refugees into Europe with terror”, says Randstorp.
Alienation and parallel society.
The accusations in Europe are directed inwards. More than 160 people have died in two terrorist attacks that are tied to persons with residence and citizenship rights in Belgium. We all recognize the names now: Abdelhamid, Omar, Saleh, Najim, Mohammed, Ibrahim, Khalid. Their apartness lies in their names, their skin color and their religion. They and their parents have not been received properly. Immigrants are discriminated, they can’t get jobs, they are not even called in to job interviews. A parallel society has arisen. Ghettos where almost all of the majority population have moved out. In these enclaves there are other values and other identities that dominate. The police, the authorities and the West are enemies. They have other heroes, different conspiracy theories. There is unity, there is a society, but it is not ours.
There is a parallel society. It is a society,but it is not ours.
In Norway it is believed to be different. To the state broadcasting medium (NRK) the “police security service” (PST) leader, Benedicte Bjørnland says that Norway does not yet have “the parallel societies that foster extremist islamists that we see out in Europe”. Not yet at least.
Reality denial by politicians.
Randstorp and others that provide commentary, keep good company with many politicians, that continue to deny and to avoid pointing out the obvious, that, the terror threat level is a consequence of immigration, including the immigration that has its origins in the asylum system. To be more specific: it can be be coupled to immigration from Muslim countries. The more outsiders that come the more rapid is the growth of parallel societies.
The terror threat level is directly linked to immigration from Muslim countries.
Immigration-liberalism has been preached from a script that began with claiming that all immigration was a cultural enrichment for Europe. Facts that gradually began to point out that the opposite was the case, were first denied or downplayed. When this became undeniable the response was that immigration simply couldn’t be stopped. We could not build walls, people would come anyway. Then when it is shown that walls do work, morality is applied, we are told that we have a moral obligation to help and to welcome those that ask for help.
Populism or common sense?
The political elite has to wake up and take responsibility otherwise they will be swept aside by those that speak plain truth. Donald Trump seems to have understood this. We can build walls and we can discriminate in our own interest against Muslims.
In central and eastern Europe they have understood this, they do not want parallel societies. Therefore they refuse to have mass-immigration, especially from Muslim countries. People in Western Europe also see this, Hege Storhaug who describes Islam as a plague, has sold 50000 copies of a book, that the political elite did not manage to silence. The debate on immigration rages on in social media, whilst face-to-face people dare hardly utter a word on the subject not knowing what opinion the other person has.
Integration and immigration stop.
It is usual to think that strict immigration restrictions automatically have a negative effect on integration, and to some degree it does. The logic behind a strict immigration politic is that immigration is a problem, something unwanted that has to be limited. It is therefore difficult not to regard those that have already immigrated as a problem. And being seen to be a problem is something other than being regarded as a benefit.
One mountain safety rule is to turn back before it is too late to do so. This should apply to Norway where these parallel societies are not yet fully developed. Most Norwegians do see immigration as a problem.
Why then is Norway spared and not Belgium, France and Sweden. Are Norwegians world champions in integration and more open and including? Or have we only experienced immigration for a shorter period and to a lesser degree, while we have had a strong economy and need for workers? And how long can this last?
Most Norwegians do consider immigration a problem. Most of us do not like the moral consequences of our own selfishness and nationalism, but it is what we are, all of us. Norway is ours, and only the few can be allowed to come here “with us”.
How many can we accept?
Immigration has to be limited, faced with the vast numbers that would come if they were allowed to. We must therefore think in numbers, how many each year and in the long run.
How many non-ethnic Norwegians can we absorb before we get Swedish and Belgian conditions?
Are some immigrant categories more difficult to integrate than others? And should this have consequences for who is to be let in?
To what degree must we learn to “live with terror” or increased surveillance, more taboos, more crime, less welfare benefits, and so on. It is a question of taking responsibility rather than the making of excuses and the avoidance of issues.
I think that folk’s patience is wearing thin. Those that have got us into this situation have to go and to be replaced internally by those that can take control of the situation. Before darker more instinctive forces come into play.